Allahabad High Court
Vipin vs State Of U.P.And Another on 12 September, 2022
Bench: Suresh Kumar Gupta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 72
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 4292 of 2022
Applicant :- Vipin
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Vipul Kumar Singh,Amit Daga
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Rajat Kumar Shukla
Hon'ble Suresh Kumar Gupta,J.
List revised. None is present on behalf of the first informant.
Heard Sri Amit Daga learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Nitin Kesarwani, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.
The present anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. has been filed for grant of anticipatory bail as the accused-applicant is apprehending his arrest in connection with Criminal Complaint Case No.22314 of 2021 arising out of case crime no. 589 of 2021 under Sections 377, 323, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station-Highway, District -Mathura.
Learned counsel for applicant has submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. F.I.R. of the present case lodged by the opposite party no. 3 for unnatural sexual assault. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that an F.I.R. was lodged by the applicant side on 22.5.2021 as case crime no. 198 of 2021 under Sections 143, 452, 341, 323, 379 I.P.C. Police Station- Gangapur City, District- Sawai Madhopur, Rajasthan in which date of incident was mentioned as 21.5.2021 and in this case charge sheet was file against the first informant and his family members.
Being aggrieved with this F.I.R. as a counter blast case the present false and frivolous F.I.R. has been lodged by the first informant against the applicant on 1.6.2021 as case crime no. 589 of 2021 Police Station- Highway, District- Mathura in which date of incident has been mentioned as 10.5.2021. During investigation, the applicant was exonerated. In the present case Final Report was submitted. After submission of the final report protest petition was filed by the opposite party no. 3, which has been treated as complaint case in which the applicant was summoned to face the trial under Section 377, 323, 504 I.P.C. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that after lodging of this F.I.R. again an false and frivolous F.I.R. has also been lodged by the opposite party no. 3 on 21.4.2022 as case crime no. 182 of 2022 under Sections 377, 323, 504, 506 and 34 I.P.C. Police Station- Gangapur City, District- Sawai Madhopur, Rajastha in which date of incident has been mentioned as 10.5.2021 to 21.5.2021.
Further submission is that the applicant fully cooperated with the investigation, therefore no need of custodial interrogation of the applicant, hence, the applicant may be enlarged on anticipatory bail till conclusion of trial and he is ready to cooperate with the trial. If the applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he will never misuse the same. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the applicants has relied upon the judgement of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Aman Preet Singh vs. C.B.I. through Director, AIR 2021 Supreme Court 4154.
Learned Additional Government Advocate has vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail to the applicant. Thus, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is liable to be rejected.
I have considered the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire material available on record.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Aman Preet Singh (Supra), the Court has observed as under:
"10. Insofar as the present case is concerned and the general principles under Section 170 Cr.P.C., the most apposite observations are in sub-para (v) of the High Court judgment in the context of an accused in a non-bailable offence whose custody was not required during the period of investigation. In such a scenario, it is appropriate that the accused is released on bail as the circumstances of his having not been arrested during investigation or not being produced in custody is itself sufficient to entitle him to be released on bail.
11. The rationale has been succinctly set out that if a person has been enlarged and free for many years and has not even been arrested during investigation, to suddenly direct his arrest and to be incarcerated merely because charge sheet has been filed would be contrary to the governing principles for grant of bail. We could not agree more with this."
In Aman Preet Singh (supra), the Court has clearly held that if a person, who is an accused in a non-bailable/cognizable offence, was not taken into custody during the period of investigation, in such a case, it is appropriate that he may be released on bail as the circumstances of his having not been arrested during investigation or not being produced in custody is itself sufficient to entitle him to be released on bail.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that it is a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant.
Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application is hereby allowed.
Let the applicant Vipin be released on bail by the trial Court till conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal bond and, two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court concerned with the following conditions:
(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that the applicant shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in Court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law;
(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through counsel. In case of absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against the applicant under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code. The applicant shall cooperate in the investigation;
(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail and in order to secure his/her presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the Court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against the applicant in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code; and
(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court default of this condition is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of their bail and proceed against them in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 12.9.2022
Anuj Singh
